@michaela : perhaps that is true. I don’t know enough of the facts here since the OP does have a piece of gear that is ex-US. I’ll give you one example. Years ago, I bought a piece of consumer electronics (video) from a dealer in the States and it had problems. The dealer was useless. I contacted the manufacturer- they said, "oh, he’s not an authorized dealer, so we have no obligation." I sent them a copy of a print advertisement from the dealer that appeared in a major electronics magazine (yeah, this was some time ago), claiming that the dealer was authorized to sell the brand. The ad even included the manufacturer’s logo and the words "authorized dealer." I suggested to the manufacturer that they ought do a better job policing this. They agreed, and sent some techs to my house, along with a new unit. But, this doesn’t sound like that situation.
Sometimes, the issue of grey market isn’t always so murky and doesn’t involve any overt misrepresentations (although who knows- dealers can sometimes be a little too slick, right?). However, there are times when a consumer knows that they are purchasing something outside of the authorized system and in that case, I think the consumer bears the risk. For any high priced piece of gear, used, I would probably insist on the serial number and contact the manufacturer to verify its origin and service history before I bought. (I don’t know how much this happens in hi-fi, but I know in the case of other luxuries goods, some have turned out to be stolen!- Not suggesting that is the case here at all, just that you can never be too careful when laying out substantial funds).
Having said all that, please note that the original statement from the US distributor (contained in the original post that started this thread) did strike me as overbroad-- in refusing service for any equipment not bought from an authorized dealer. This would exclude the used market, even if the gear was originally "authorized" to be sold within the territory, i.e, not grey market. See my post above at 09-25-2016 9:57am.
I’m reluctant to paint this with a broad brush-- it really depends on the facts. I don’t believe a consumer who knowingly buys out of market goods can expect or should the support, for the several reasons mentioned in another post of mine above.
But, I’m not the arbiter of this, and your view is certainly as valid as mine. To the extent that there is a cost to be borne, it is usually the consumer that pays it, one way or the other.
